Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is that what translators do? Perhaps you are being sarcastic?

As you know, the LDS church has English scripture like the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and D&C, as well as the non-scriptural JST which have interpretations of the Bible. Why wouldn't or shouldn't any English Biblical translation undertaken by the LDS church use those as an aid in translation?

[Benjamin McGuire]

52 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

As you know, the LDS church has English scripture like the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and D&C, as well as the non-scriptural JST which have interpretations of the Bible. Why wouldn't or shouldn't any English Biblical translation undertaken by the LDS church use those as an aid in translation?

I think that if the LDS Church wanted to produce an English Biblical translation, they would do so - but I don't think it would be a good idea. Modern interpretation places texts into new contexts - they don't generally provide accurate understanding of a text in its original context. This is part of what makes for bad translations ...

If we would consider this, then why not consider the alternative as well? That is, the Book of Mormon, PoGP and D&C regularly quote from the King James text. Why not replace those quotations in these modern scriptures with better translations than the King James? That is, why not update modern scripture where we know it quotes ancient scripture? After all, the huge blocks of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon that are verbatim citations of the King James text already cannot represent some literal translation of an original Isaiah text.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Thank you for putting this up.  I still wish there was a way I could up-vote you.  Yikes, over FIVE hours this time (I need to go on longer walks this week).

I hear ya!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, PacMan said:

that is true, then I am very concerned for him.  He can prioritize data>dogma, but discipleship>data>dogma.

I disagree that what he is doing is not prioritizing discipleship..  Everyone has their own missions to fill, not all are called to be spiritual witnesses to the world.  

[CA Steve]

36 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that if the LDS Church wanted to produce an English Biblical translation, they would do so - but I don't think it would be a good idea. Modern interpretation places texts into new contexts - they don't generally provide accurate understanding of a text in its original context. This is part of what makes for bad translations ...

If we would consider this, then why not consider the alternative as well? That is, the Book of Mormon, PoGP and D&C regularly quote from the King James text. Why not replace those quotations in these modern scriptures with better translations than the King James? That is, why not update modern scripture where we know it quotes ancient scripture? After all, the huge blocks of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon that are verbatim citations of the King James text already cannot represent some literal translation of an original Isaiah text.

I don't disagree with the impact here but the very fact that Isaiah is in the BoM indicates it is not original context. Given that we are a church based on modern revelation why is it an issue to update out of date text based on a better understanding? And, yes I realize it is very unlikely to happen. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by CA Steve

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, PacMan said:

If that is true, then I am very concerned for him.  He can prioritize data>dogma, but discipleship>data>dogma.

Be sure, sidelines answer the question of discipleship.  Rom 1:16; 1 Peter 3:15.

I will say this: Dan's position is not sustainable.  You cannot have one foot in and one foot out.  In 10 years, he will be a major force for good defending the restored gospel of Jesus Christ or will become a vocal and ardent critic of the Church--even in areas that far exceed his scholastic competencies.  Time will tell.

I see the church changing constantly to keep up with the church being relevant. I know the core will always be the same, but the other does need to change. I've heard many a quote from the leaders on this. The church has put forth that it gets revelation and this keeps things fluid. Mankind isn't perfect and those that put things down on paper/plates/rocks or whatever may not be right and it's their perspective or belief and that shouldn't be held as the highest authority, there's only one that is the authority, not even a church should say they are. What do you think of the temple changes? Does Pres Nelson have one foot in one foot out? I believe he got personal revelation to do this along with the two hour church time, and more. Pres Holland spoke about the church evolving and the church being behind, wish I could find it. So I picture what Dan is telling us by his research is that the church/Joseph Smith didn't see or do the kind of research back then about the Bible but used it in his/their own revelation on things. Manmade churches exist, manmade is the only possibility. God/Jesus aren't/isn't walking the streets hand in hand with us, it's revealed and some revelations aren't from Them but our own feelings on things. That's how I picture the Bible to be, men's thoughts and even a few, very few women's perhaps? It's very one sided sadly. 

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

As you know, the LDS church has English scripture like the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and D&C, as well as the non-scriptural JST which have interpretations of the Bible. Why wouldn't or shouldn't any English Biblical translation undertaken by the LDS church use those as an aid in translation?

I guess they would, but I would struggle with the validity of the methodology. Something about that seems like reading into the Biblical text that which the authors never even considered or had in mind when written under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

[PacMan]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I just want to add one thing - it's been a decade or so since I posted on this topic, so maybe it's okay to repeat myself. There is an inherent challenge with the academic study of religion. Oversimplified, the question is whether or not religion can be accurately studied by its participants (which would be an odd assertion, perhaps, in any other field of study). Nearly three decades ago now, Terrence W. Tilley wrote a short (13 pages) review article of a book titled Explaining Religion: Criticism and Theory from Bodin to Freud by J. Samuel Preus. The book itself is interesting, but, as I often do, I really enjoyed the review of the book and the observations that it makes (of course, reviews are often like this, right?). Tilley lets us know in no uncertain terms that Preus's work is itself a polemic. And he describes quite well the conundrum faced by this field and its struggle to come to terms with itself as an academic endeavor. He writes:

Part of the key to Dan's success, and to the value of his work, is that he works hard to create distance where it is helpful. In the academic world, there usually needs to be a separation between the study of the biblical text, for example, and the religious context in which the text is used. Simply explaining that you have a bias doesn't create enough space. By making every effort to avoid bringing religion into discussions of the text, Dan creates (as much as possible) a skeptical account. When these attempts fail, it isn't always bad, but it can be noticeable. And in the worst cases, what appears to be academic work is actually devotional. This may be fine - if it is what your audience is expecting - but it won't garner acceptance from a broader audience. And in non-religious questions (even about religious texts and topics), bad approaches often lead to bad conclusions.

I had a professor in law school to whom I casually remarked, "I can't tell if you're Republican or a Democrat."  He was tickled-pink by the comment, because he didn't want to be an ideolog.  He was an academic and a scholar.  And he wanted to be a good one.

So, my focus isn't in revealing underlying biases, per se, but being honest and transparent about our assumptions.  Bias is just one of those assumptions.  And where Dan provides very little discussion (let alone gives credit to) opinions differing from his, I am greatly suspect of the assumptions that he brings to the table.  That is magnified when academic members of the church in contention with gospel principles have (secretly or not) knighted themselves part of His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.

Still, your point reflects a great cancer in the field of theology...like the judicial system.  A judge's bias only becomes a problem when it becomes unhidden.

Edited August 28, 2023 by PacMan

[Benjamin McGuire]

25 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Given that we are a church based on modern revelation why is it an issue to update out of date text based on a better understanding? And, yes I realize it is very unlikely to happen.

I think that it is because we have, since the time of Joseph Smith, adopted some of what me might call the more traditional views of the biblical text - but applied them to modern scripture instead of to the Bible. That is, we have a wide belief that the Book of Mormon is somehow a perfect translation - so, anything we do to change it could only make it worse. It is a shift that started near the end of the 19th century, with the publication of the first major English translations of the biblical text after the King James.

[rjohnson7]

18 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Any one believe that the seer stone in a hat is viable? if so what is your proof and any first hand accounts would be great..

 

rjohnson7 

 

18 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Egyptologist John Gee has explained that there remains much work to be done on Facsimile 3:

"Facsimile 3 has always been the most neglected of the three facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. Unfortunately, most of what has been said about this facsimile is seriously wanting at best and highly erroneous at worst. This lamentable state of affairs exists because the basic Egyptological work on Facsimile 3 has not been done, and much of the evidence lies neglected and unpublished in museums. Furthermore, what an ancient Egyptian understood by a vignette and what a modern Egyptologist understands by the same vignette are by no means the same thing. Until we understand what the Egyptians understood by this scene, we have no hope of telling whether what Joseph Smith said about them matches what the Egyptians thought about them."

Chuckle, he get it wrong? oh my! 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I see the church changing constantly to keep up with the church being relevant. I know the core will always be the same, but the other does need to change. I've heard many a quote from the leaders on this. The church has put forth that it gets revelation and this keeps things fluid. Mankind isn't perfect and those that put things down on paper/plates/rocks or whatever may not be right and it's their perspective or belief and that shouldn't be held as the highest authority, there's only one that is the authority, not even a church should say they are. What do you think of the temple changes? Does Pres Nelson have one foot in one foot out? I believe he got personal revelation to do this along with the two hour church time, and more. Pres Holland spoke about the church evolving and the church being behind, wish I could find it. So I picture what Dan is telling us by his research is that the church/Joseph Smith didn't see or do the kind of research back then about the Bible but used it in his/their own revelation on things. Manmade churches exist, manmade is the only possibility. God/Jesus aren't/isn't walking the streets hand in hand with us, it's revealed and some revelations aren't from Them but our own feelings on things. That's how I picture the Bible to be, men's thoughts and even a few, very few women's perhaps? It's very one sided sadly. 

 

The Church is still going through a restoration of all things... even Pres. Nelson said that its ongoing. 

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

there's only one that is the authority,

I like your post very much. I am just having trouble figuring out who is "the only one that is the authority" to whom you are referring? Is it God or the prophet of the church, or are you hinting at God through the prophet? Thanks, curious minds just need to know.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 8/24/2023 at 2:44 PM, PacMan said:

While his vocal stance is anti-dogma, his positions are very dogmatic.  He rarely (and thinly at best) explains competing theories but simply states ipse-dixit that something is because he says that's the way it is. 

Can you give your best example of Dan doing this? Dan is an expert in the field. He speaks authoritatively on subjects that he is an expert in. His views are informed by years of study in academia. A dogmatic approach (from how I use the word) attempts to fit the data into our existing world view. For a great example of this you can reference Muhlestein’s idea that since it’s a given Joseph was a prophet, all data will be interpreted to fit that world view. Dan does the exact opposite. He (granted in an authoritative manner - which is well earned based on his credentials and background) presents our best idea of how those who actually wrote the Bible viewed the world. 
 

For example in the case of homosexuality he presents historians best ideas of what the authors of Leviticus objected to, and how they viewed the world (which is very foreign to our own view of things). Same with Paul who had a very foreign sexual ethic. I’ve never seen him take anyone to task who is actually engaging with the scholarship on the subject. But rather those who impose a 21st century gloss on the data. 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I guess they would, but I would struggle with the validity of the methodology. Something about that seems like reading into the Biblical text that which the authors never even considered or had in mind when written under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Who gets to decide which version of the Bible was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit and how do they decide that?

Edited August 28, 2023 by CA Steve

[smac97]

On 8/28/2023 at 9:34 AM, PacMan said:

I had a professor in law school to whom I casually remarked, "I can't tell if you're Republican or a Democrat."  He was tickled-pink by the comment, because he didn't want to be an ideolog.  He was an academic and a scholar.  And he wanted to be a good one.

I had a law professor at BYU who once casually described himself as "the most liberal professor in the law school, which is like bragging about being the tallest mountain in Kansas."  Until that moment I had not given any thought to his political perspectives, largely because my interactions were in an academic setting where sociopolitical sentiments had no real relevance (the class was "Telecommunications Law" - boy, what a snore), and because this professor never injected his sociopolitical opinions into classroom discussions.  In other words, this fellow's sociopolitical biases/beliefs didn't matter because the topic at hand was one that could be addressed without injecting such things into the conversation.

In other contexts, however, this can be more difficult.  For example, years ago I occasionally taught an "Introduction to American Law"-style class to undergraduates at Utah Valley University.  It was a very "big picture" type of class, but we spent a fair amount of time on the Constitution, and more particularly the Bill of Rights because that is where most of the "meat" of constitutional issues arises.  When it came to discussing the Second Amendment, I touched on it fairly briefly, describing it as controversial because it pertains to individual gun rights and governmental regulation thereof (about which Americans have sharp disagreement).  Although I am, in the main, a big fan of the Second Amendment (and, indeed, of the entire Bill of Rights), I did not find it necessary or appropriate or helpful to inject my personal beliefs into the discussion.  So I didn't.  When students asked me what I think, when they invited me to share my personal sentiments, I declined, stating only that A) the Second Amendment and the case law interpreting it is the "law of the land," and B) reasonable minds can disagree about the regulation of firearms.

On 8/28/2023 at 9:34 AM, PacMan said:

So, my focus isn't in revealing underlying biases, per se, but being honest and transparent about our assumptions.  Bias is just one of those assumptions.  And where Dan provides very little discussion (let alone gives credit to) opinions differing from his, I am greatly suspect of the assumptions that he brings to the table. 

I have recently been reading some stuff about Neil DeGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist who is also something of a populist as to matters regarding race, religion, "gender identity," and so on.  Mr. Tyson has publicized his pronouncements on these other topics, which has resulted in other commentators scrutinizing his perspective on those other issues.  See, e.g., here:

If and when a "scientist" lets non-scientific considerations prioritize politics and opinions over the science, the data, the facts, then he has injected his assumptions into the discussion, he has put them on the table.

I can't help but wonder if Dan has looked at Tyson-as-both-Scientist-and-Populist-on-Social-Media and thought of something like this: "Hmm, I sort of want to do that.  I want to be a McClellan-as-both-Biblical-Scholar-and-Populist-on-Social-Media kind of figure.  I want to break down biblical scholarship into smaller pieces that are more easily understood and digested by interested neophytes.  However, Tyson has forayed into discussions on topics well outside his area of expertise, which over time may distract from his original objectives.  To avoid that, I will deliberately narrow the focus of my commentary to the Bible."

I'm not sure he can do that - or even that he has succeeded at trying to do it.  But that may be his objective.

On 8/28/2023 at 9:34 AM, PacMan said:

That is magnified when academic members of the church are in contention with gospel principles that knight themselves part of His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.

Do you think this is what Dan is attempting? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

This is an interesting take on Dan's interview with John Dehlin:

1. "To the degree that faith is evidence of things hoped for and not seen, you should not expect the data to support what you have faith in.  And they don't.  The data point pretty firmly in the opposite direction of a historical Book of Mormon.  That is why I talk about the Book of Mormon as something that is, the data indicate is a product of the nineteenth century. ... That's what I would argue the data indicate."

2. Regarding "a literal Jesus, who died and was resurrected, and was the Son of God," Dan states:

"Resurrection is another thing that, from an academic point of view, that's a physical impossibility.  And so without extraordinary evidence for that, there's no way a scholar can say 'Yes, this makes sense,' because it doesn't.  It violates everything we know about the operation of the universe.  So the bar for that kind of evidence is even higher, and we don't have data that come anywhere near getting us over that bar.  So from a scholarly point of view, the resurrection is not something that is supported by the data.  The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, who was probably an apocalyptic itinerant preacher, who probably preached against the Roman Empire, and preached the coming of the Kingdom of God imminently, and was executed because of it.  And then we have Jesus' followers afterwards spreading stories about him coming back to life and ministry before leaving again."

3. Dehlin asks: "Going back to the end of your employment with the Church, I could just see how all sorts of maybe even good or well-intended church leaders would say 'We gotta get Dan out of here because the implications of what he's teaching is not, in the long term, good for orthodox Mormon faith."  Dan responds:

"As long as I have supporters and detractors across the entire spectrum, I'm probably sitting in a sweet spot.  I'm probably doing something right if I'm offering reasons for people to remain faithful and reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful."

Dehlin responds: "On behalf of so so many of my listeners and friends, we're all just loving what you do, in awe of it, and cheering you on."

Dan: "Well, thank you so much."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

On 8/24/2023 at 2:44 PM, PacMan said:

While his vocal stance is anti-dogma, his positions are very dogmatic.  He rarely (and thinly at best) explains competing theories but simply states ipse-dixit that something is because he says that's the way it is. 

 

Can you give your best example of Dan doing this? [...] A dogmatic approach (from how I use the word) attempts to fit the data into our existing world view.

I do not have a link to the TikTok, but I'm thinking of one where Dan was stating quite plainly that a section from the Bible said what it said, not because the author of the time truly believed it or had received some sort of spiritual guidance on the topic, but because he was comfortably sitting in his power structure and spinning out scripture in order to preserve that power structure.  Dan didn't even mention those other possibilities, or provide any sources to back his claim, he just laid out the claim as if it were totally self-evident and needed no further argumentation.

It's hard enough to look into each other's hearts and judge motives when we are talking to them face to face.  Putting that level of armchair psychoanalysis into a long-dead person from a long-dead culture, based on scanty written records, well, if that ain't DOGMA I don't know what would qualify.

 

 

[Calm]

On 8/24/2023 at 2:44 PM, PacMan said:

While his vocal stance is anti-dogma, his positions are very dogmatic.  He rarely (and thinly at best) explains competing theories

It is Tik Tok.  It has got to be quick, bite size.

He likely would spend more time on competing theories with his papers or teaching in a university class (if he were to do that).

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I like your post very much. I am just having trouble figuring out who is "the only one that is the authority" to whom you are referring? Is it God or the prophet of the church, or are you hinting at God through the prophet? Thanks, curious minds just need to know.

God/Jesus  thanks for liking it, I say a lot of words when I probably don't need them. 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Who gets to decide which version of the Bible was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit and how do they decide that?

I think the vast number of Evangelicals would answer that no version was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit, except perhaps by commitment to prayer and seeking guidance. I think they would insist that the original documents penned by the original authors were created under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, and are thus without error in their spiritual intent. Of course we don't have any (most likely) of those. Thus the importance of trying to determine what is called "original intent" in interpretation and its academic term - hermeneutics is the goal. However if you ever take a hermeneutics class and the first day the professor doesn't state that that is an impossible task to get absolutely correct, you should go find another professor. 

I prefer the second CSB (not the Holman) version because I well, I prefer it. I also know some of the 100 or so who worked on it over the years, and I know their sincerity in their task. I am old, but I don't know any of the KJV translation committee! I tend to trust people who I know and can vouch for their hard work and more importantly, their humility with which they approach the task. Prayer, supplication, humility, hard work, and expert knowledge of the languages of what we do have are the tools. Then it boils down to matter of preference and which speaks to you. Preference may include preconceived doctrinal validation, but that is of little or no importance to me.

[smac97]

On 8/28/2023 at 12:42 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

I do not have a link to the TikTok, but I'm thinking of one where Dan was stating quite plainly that a section from the Bible said what it said, not because the author of the time truly believed it or had received some sort of spiritual guidance on the topic, but because he was comfortably sitting in his power structure and spinning out scripture in order to preserve that power structure.  Dan didn't even mention those other possibilities, or provide any sources to back his claim, he just laid out the claim as if it were totally self-evident and needed no further argumentation.

It's hard enough to look into each other's hearts and judge motives when we are talking to them face to face.  Putting that level of armchair psychoanalysis into a long-dead person from a long-dead culture, based on scanty written records, well, if that ain't DOGMA I don't know what would qualify.

It's stuff like this that makes me question the long-term viability of Dan's Populist-Bible-Scholar endeavor. 

Neil DeGrasse Tyson seemingly can't help but allow his sociopolitical viewpoint to bleed into - even direct - his commentary on topics outside of astrophysics.  I think someone angling to be a social media populist my get concerned that commentary on the subject matter of the populist's expertise (in Tyson's case, astrophysics) would run out of material, or would start losing the interest of the masses.  Or perhaps the populist would start to feel like "Hey, I'm a smart guy regarding astrophysics, so perhaps I should start spouting off on other topics..."  And those "other topics" would, naturally, include matters of import to the populist, including trendy subjects. 

Tyson has succumbed to this, I think.  Is Dan headed the same way?  I think this video explores that question fairly well:

As the :39 mark:

Quote

{W}e have been discussing how critical theory creates a new way of viewing the world.  People who embrace this woke lens start to see everything through the lens of power dynamics between groups.  Almost everything is framed in terms of 'privileged' versus the 'marginalized.'  The 'oppressed' versus the 'oppressor.'  For these people, the great battle is between different groups in a great power battle.  On the other hand, the Christian lens frames the world primarily in terms of 'sin' and 'righteousness,' with a focus not on groups, but on changing individual human hearts.
...
Increasingly in the Church, among the 'influencer' class and the academics, you can see this 'priivleged versus marginalized' or 'oppressors versus oppressed' way of seeing the world. 

The video goes on to quote an excerpt from Proclaim Peace by Patrick O. Mason and J. David Pulsipher, and an excerpt from two podcasters, and a video from Rebecca de Schweinitz (BYU professor), all of which are using the foregoing terminology. 

At the 3:05 mark:

Quote

You may notice that a 'call to activism,' rather than to individual repentance, is a common push amongst those who have adopted this woke lens.  Activism, rather than repentance, is seen as the primary path to Zion-building.  And social equity, rather than individual righteousness, is the priority. 
... 
Dan's scholarship is, for the most part, really good, and I'm actually a big fan of Dan's work when he stays in his lane and focuses on the facts.  But he's also a case study in how someone can be so right on the facts, but have his entire worldview and interpretation of of facts badly warped by this ideological lens.  It's extremely clear that he frames his entire study of the Bible through the lens of competing power dynamics between groups.  

He then excerpts an interview of Dan on "Faith Matters," in which the host describes Dan sharing "a story about how he got started, including that one of the reasons he got started in sharing content on social media, was that he saw that people would use outdated or incorrect assumptions about the Bible, or the interpretation of scripture generally, to justify power dynamics that place themselves at the top."  Then in the podcase Dan says: "More often than not they're doing that to, they want to wield the Bible as a rhetorical bludgeon, or in an effort to structure the power in favor of one group over and against another.  And frequently 'the other' is a marginalized or less powerful group, and that causes oppression and causes suffering, that causes people to feel devalued, that causes people to take their own lives."

Gotta love the "If you disagree with me I'll kill myself and blame you for it" argument espoused by Dan here. 

Back to the above video, at 5:15:

Quote

See, when a person does not believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, gays are then seen as 'marginalized' by the Church and the scriptures.  They, along with other groups, are in need of emancipation and liberation from their oppressors.  Thus the clear teachings on the subject need to be re-negotiated or reinterpreted to fit with our new desires. 

Many of Dan's posts are indeed steeped in this "power dynamic" rhetoric.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here. 

Similarly, on this board Dan has posted all sorts of "power dynamic" and "oppression" commentary.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, and many others. 

For me, the "viewing everything through a lens of 'power dynamics'" assessment of Dan goes a long way in explaining Dan's past behavior on this board, and the subtext that is not only apparent in his Dehlin interview, but in his own videos and on this board.

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.  I think it's just a matter of time before he becomes more explicit about this.  I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2023 by smac97

[Duncan]

I see that Matt Walsh, who has no education, is opining on trans issues, what his authority on that is who knows so why would anyone should pay any attention to him? It's the same with Ben Shapiro, he's a lawyer, why anyone should take his uneducated opinion on LGBTQ issues is also beyond me. These men aren't educated in LGBTQ issues and so have zero authority but yet they want people to take their opinion seriously. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I do not have a link to the TikTok

You’ll have to forgive me then for taking your rehash of it with a grain of salt 😜. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think this video explores that question fairly well:

I appreciated how that video ended:

"I just want to end this video by saying: Dan, if you see this and feel misrepresented in any way, I would be happy to have you on my channel, so that we can set the record straight.  At the end of the day, I very much respect your scholarship, even if I take serious issue with your analysis of the facts.  Anyway, my email is in the video description if you wanna connect."

I dearly love Dan's "Ok, let's see it" approach to things, and I'd dearly love Dan to show up and tell the ThoughtfulFaith guy where he's off.  Do we have any indication that Dan wants to connect?

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You’ll have to forgive me then for taking your rehash of it with a grain of salt 😜. 

Fair enough.  @smac97 has a far better response to your challenge:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Many of Dan's posts are indeed steeped in this "power dynamic" rhetoric.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here. 

Similarly, on this board Dan has posted all sorts of "power dynamic" and "oppression" commentary.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, and many others. 

Also, the video he posts would seem to answer your challenge quite well with multiple clips of Dan.

Edited August 28, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[LoudmouthMormon]

25 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I see that Matt Walsh, who has no education, is opining on trans issues, what his authority on that is who knows so why would anyone should pay any attention to him? It's the same with Ben Shapiro, he's a lawyer, why anyone should take his uneducated opinion on LGBTQ issues is also beyond me. These men aren't educated in LGBTQ issues and so have zero authority but yet they want people to take their opinion seriously. 

The notion that only those with formal education on a topic, can have a relevant opinion on a topic, seems really, really, really, really, reeeeeeeeeally weird to me.

Especially given the almost monopolistic postmodernist worldview adopted by formal education providers.  

I'm not a fan of "only those in authority have valuable opinions".  

Edited August 28, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon